Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage

Marriage is good for men, women,
children--and society. Because of this simple fact, President
George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot program to promote healthy
marriage. Yet the President's initiative is opposed by radical
feminists who seek to undermine what they call the "patriarchal
family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this
anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds
with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other
American women.

The Emergence of
Radical Feminism.

In its initial stages, modern American feminism was
not hostile to marriage; but in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a
wave of radical feminism emerged that was overtly hostile to the
institution of marriage itself. In their influential 1968 pamphlet
"Toward a Female Liberation Movement," for example, Beverly Jones
and Judith Brown proclaimed: "The married woman knows that love is,
at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre
heritage of oppression." In 1969, University of Chicago sociology
professor Marlene Dixon declared: "The institution of marriage is
the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women;
it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is
maintained."

In
1970, author Robin Morgan referred to marriage as "a slavery-like
practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women
until we destroy marriage." In 1971, Minnesota radical feminists
Helen Sullinger and Nancy Lehmann released a manifesto that
declared: "Male society has sold us the idea of marriage.... Now we
know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to
destroy it...." In 1981, author Vivian Gornick, a tenured professor
at the University of Arizona, proclaimed that "The choice to serve
and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice
that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change
that."

Mainstreaming
the Anti-Marriage Message.

As their influence grew, such sentiments
increasingly found their way into college textbooks and courses,
exercising a detrimental influence on the intellectual formation of
millions of students. In addition, radical feminist novelists have
carried the same message into popular literature. Marilyn French,
for example, in her 1992 book The War Against Women, wrote: "In
personal and public life, in kitchen, bedroom and halls of
parliament, men wage unremitting war against women."

Such
views help explain the shrillness of the opposition to President
Bush's policy to promote healthy marriage. Anyone who believes that
marriage harms the emotional health of women, that men and women
are locked in a predator-prey relationship, or that marriage
exploits women will disdain any policy to promote healthy marriage.
And while these views are not widely shared within our society,
they do influence feminist interest groups, which in turn influence
Congress.

The Facts About
Marriage.

Radical feminists view marriage as an oppressive
institution that harms women and children. The facts, however,
belie this view. On average, a mother who gives birth and raises a
child outside of marriage is seven times more likely to live in
poverty than is a mother who raises her children within a stable
married family. Over 80 percent of long-term child poverty in the
United States occurs in never-married or broken households.

Radical feminists claim that marriage
foments domestic violence against women. Yet domestic violence is
most common in the transitory, cohabitational relationships that
feminists have long celebrated as replacements for traditional
marriage. Never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to
suffer from domestic violence than mothers who are or have been
married.

The
multiple fields of research that have investigated the effects of
marriage show that for men, women, children, and communities at
large, marriage leads to greater health and longevity; more
education; higher income; less abuse of women, boys, and girls;
less poverty; less crime; less addiction; and less depression.

President Bush's
Initiative.

The federal welfare reform of 1996 set clear goals
to increase the number of two-parent families and reduce
out-of-wedlock childbearing. Regrettably, however, most states have
done little to advance these objectives directly. President Bush
has therefore sought to meet the original goals of welfare reform
by proposing, as part of welfare reauthorization, a new model
program to promote healthy marriage. He proposes spending $300
million per year on his model program--or only one cent to promote
healthy marriage for every five dollars the government now spends
to subsidize single-parent families.

Radical feminists view the President's
proposal with alarm. NOW President Kim Gandy, for example, has
declared: "Finding a man--the [Bush] administration's approved
ticket out of poverty--is terrible public policy. Marrying women
off to get them out of poverty is not only backward, it is
insulting to women." But the radical feminists' animosity toward
marriage is not widely shared by any other group within American
society. It would be a tragedy for America's children and families
if groups motivated by radical feminist thought were to succeed in
their efforts to block or cripple the President's healthy marriage
proposal.

Conclusion.

For decades, radical feminists have attacked
marriage as an institution that economically oppresses women and as
a prison that generates despair and mental illness for women
trapped within it. The facts, however, show that marriage has
enormous economic benefits for mothers and children. Stable
marriage has substantial, positive, emotional and psychological
benefits for women, and it dramatically improves the well-being of
children.

American children, in particular, need a
culture of stable, healthy marriage. Poor children need it most;
they have consistently suffered the greatest damage from the
erosion of marriage over the past 30 years. For the sake of all
children, but most especially for the children of the poor,
Congress should join the President in rebuilding a culture of
stable, healthy marriages.

--Patrick F. Fagan is William H. G.
FitzGerald Research Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues, Robert E.
Rector is Senior Research Fellow, and Lauren R. Noyes is Director
of Research Projects in Domestic Policy at The Heritage
Foundation.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More